Suspects Plead Not Guilty in Lost iPhone 4 Prototype Case

macrumors bot

Just as Apple is reportedly dealing with the lose of another iPhone prototype, two suspects in the case of last year's lost iPhone 4 prototype have pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor theft charges, according to CNET. That iPhone prototype was lost in a Redwood City, California bar and later sold to Gizmodo. Gizmodo was officially cleared last month as charges were brought against two suspects claimed to be responsible for finding and selling the prototype.

Quote

At an arraignment here this morning, Brian Hogan, the man who allegedly found the prototype in a bar after it was left there by an Apple engineer, and Robert Sage Wallower, who is accused of that charge as well as possessing stolen property, entered their pleas before Superior Court Judge Jonathan Karesh.

A pretrial conference is scheduled for October 11.

Click to expand...

Hogan has acknowledged finding and selling the iPhone, while Wallower has been accused of acting as a middleman in shopping the device around to various tech sites. Under California law dating back well over 100 years, anyone who finds lost property and who knows the identity of the property's likely owner is guilty of theft if they appropriate the property for their own uses instead of returning it.

macrumors regular

Under California law dating back well over 100 years, anyone who finds lost property and who knows the identity of the property's likely owner is guilty of theft if they appropriate the property for their own uses instead of returning it.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

Easy defense.
When it comes to consumer goods, the manufacturer is quite often not the owner. Even as a prototype, Apple could have easily sold it to a suppliers or another company for testing (such as AT&T) or manufacturing accessories for it (such as a neat case to make it look like a 3gs).
Someone could also believe it was a Foxconn owned Apple prototype (do people honestly believe Foxconn employees don't have access, and don't visit Cupertino?).
With Apple's secrecy, no outside person can tell which companies Apple had or had not made prototypes available to.

Additionally, and the BEST defense is the fact that IT WAS a protype that has not been unveiled.
At the time the device was totally different from any design that Apple had released or unveiled, with its lack of curved edges, delicate glass on both sides, thin aluminum band around the outside.
No one at that time would have looked at it and said "that's the iPhone".
At that time, the iPhone WAS the 3GS. Had any layman familiar with the 2010 current iPhone seen the protype, they'd have said "What the F is that"?!?
And with all the fake handsets that were out there, it could have been (and WAS) believed to be a fake.
It wasn't until Giz opened it and properly identified KNOWN Apple hardware & chips that the owner was clearly Apple. ANYONE can stamp an Apple logo and some text on a device.
So even the middlemen would legally be pretty safe in saying they couldn't know that Apple was the owner.

But really, IMO the statute of limitations should expire pretty quick for this case. And definitely not continue past Apple's discontinuation of the model.
Even more importantly, if I has a say, Apple would have to show that their income and profits were grossly damaged by the leaking/sale (which they wouldn't be able to show at all, because if anything, Apple gained MORE press and garnered more demand from the unusual exposure).

Something found and sold shouldn't be a crime. Something stolen and sold already is and should be punishable.

Click to expand...

Totally agree.
What's to stop anyone from back-peddling and saying the item they threw away was actually 'lost'?
Such as if a man throws out a cardboard box, then later realizes it had a wad of cash in it.
Suddenly the box wasn't discarded, but is now lost, and anyone who had previously found the lost box is suddenly a criminal. JUST because the guy changed his mind.

Easy defense.
When it comes to consumer goods, the manufacturer is quite often not the owner. Even as a prototype, Apple could have easily sold it to a suppliers or another company for testing (such as AT&T) or manufacturing accessories for it (such as a neat case to make it look like a 3gs).
Someone could easily believe it was a Foxconn owned Apple prototype.
With Apple's secrecy, no outside person can tell which companies Apple had or had not made prototypes available to.

But really, IMO the statute of limitations should expire pretty quick for this case. And definitely not continue past Apple's discontinuation of the model.
Even more importantly, if I has a say, Apple would have to show that their income and profits were grossly damaged by the leaking/sale (which they wouldn't be able to show at all, because if anything, Apple gained MORE press and garnered more demand from the unusual exposure).

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the iPhone being a prototype or what Apple may have lost in profits.

It is a simple case.

They found an item, they knew it was something special and who the likely owner was. They did not make efforts to return the iPhone to the likely owner, which was a very simple thing to do. Instead they sold the item, knowing it to be a prototype, to the highest bidder. Cut and dried.

macrumors 6502

Easy defense.
When it comes to consumer goods, the manufacturer is quite often not the owner.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're overlooking the fact that Hogan knew exactly who the phone belonged to. The phone was logged into Gray Powell's facebook page! Gizmodo bragged about having the phone of an Apple engineer.

It would have taken 1 minute to leave a message for Gray that he found his phone and how to retrieve it. Or he could have given it to the manager of the bar he found it in.

This is basic decency, people. Don't take things that don't belong to you! Hogan made no apparent effort to return the phone and deserves to be found guilty.

macrumors 601

Something found and sold shouldn't be a crime. Something stolen and sold already is and should be punishable. Is the case about determining whether the iPhone was found or stolen?

Click to expand...

Found and not returned by California law is theft. The phone was not returned at all - the owner (which Hogan knew about) was not contacted, the police was not contacted by Hogan, the beer garden was not contacted....

He supposedly contacted Apple Care, but that has never been proven nor were they an appropriate party to contact since they don't deal with stolen device.

macrumors 6502

Is there a law that says I must return to the lawful owner everything I find on the street? What if Gray was littering and the suspects just picked up his trash for him and then realized it was of value and decided to profit from it. If I find something I feel that I now am the new owner of it and can do with it what I please regardless of whether the world thinks its right or not.

macrumors 601

In California, yes there is. Don't like it? Write your state representative.

Click to expand...

It actually covers items of a certain minimum value (I think 200 is the lower limit). If you ind anything of at least that value you are required to contact the police unless you can contact the owner.

macrumors 68020

Back on topic - I still want them to go after gizmodo/gawker for buying it, just because I think they are scum/hacks who call themselves journalists but only pretend to be when they need legal protection from something they did wrong.

macrumors member

Sorry, but you're overlooking the fact that Hogan knew exactly who the phone belonged to. The phone was logged into Gray Powell's facebook page! Gizmodo bragged about having the phone of an Apple engineer.

Click to expand...

Not that I know a whole lot about the case, but this is the first time I see the engineer who lost the phone identified. I hope he didn't lose his job over this. Does anyone know?

macrumors 68000

Hogan knew whose phone it was and made no effort to return it. He pulled up the Facebook app right after finding the phone. He knew the owner was an Apple engineer. The way I see it, Hogan had three honest options at that point:

1) Get a hold of Powell and tell him he had the phone.

2) Give it to the bar to the owner of the establishment and let him know Powell's contact info from facebook.

3) Leave the phone where he found it and walk away.

Hogan took the phone instead and decided to sell it to a gadget blog. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was not his. That's just wrong. If I set my wallet on a table and step away for a moment it does not make it fair game for anybody who wants it. Taking it is still stealing.

I think the number of people who want Hogan to get off without a conviction want that because they probably also lack the decency to return something that does not belong to them.

One of my favorite movie scenes of all time is the beginning of The Family Man (with Nicholas Cage) where the angel in disguise gives somebody the wrong amount of change to see if they will be honest about pointing that out and giving it back. The person takes the money and leaves and the angel is left there disappointed in the state of humanity.

If Hogan had integrity and returned the device he may have even gotten a nice reward for it. Instead he let his greed overcome him and made the wrong choice. His friends even urged him to return it. It sounds like the guy needs to learn a lesson about this the hard way if you ask me.

Is there a law that says I must return to the lawful owner everything I find on the street? What if Gray was littering and the suspects just picked up his trash for him and then realized it was of value and decided to profit from it. If I find something I feel that I now am the new owner of it and can do with it what I please regardless of whether the world thinks its right or not.

Guest

macrumors member

Only scumbags would take something that is not theirs. By leaving the bar with the "found" item they should have left it with the owner of the bar.

By leaving the bar with the phone shows intent, and therefore guilty of theft.

They made the decision to pick up the phone, either put it back down or leave it with the bartender or manager/owner of the establishment

Only pathetic wimps would argue the fact they picked up the phone, found out the phone was an apple prototype and thus worth something and then leave the bar with out attempting to reach the owner or Apple to return to. They could easily could have given it to the bar owner.

any argument beyond this only shows they can't even man up and admit to what they did, they have to play the common place "not-guilty" approach to the law and drag it out and waste yours and mine tax dollars on this debacle.

macrumors 68030

Easy defense.
When it comes to consumer goods, the manufacturer is quite often not the owner. Even as a prototype, Apple could have easily sold it to a suppliers or another company for testing (such as AT&T) or manufacturing accessories for it (such as a neat case to make it look like a 3gs).
Someone could also believe it was a Foxconn owned Apple prototype (do people honestly believe Foxconn employees don't have access, and don't visit Cupertino?).
With Apple's secrecy, no outside person can tell which companies Apple had or had not made prototypes available to.

Additionally, and the BEST defense is the fact that IT WAS a protype that has not been unveiled.
At the time the device was totally different from any design that Apple had released or unveiled, with its lack of curved edges, delicate glass on both sides, thin aluminum band around the outside.
No one at that time would have looked at it and said "that's the iPhone".
At that time, the iPhone WAS the 3GS. Had any layman familiar with the 2010 current iPhone seen the protype, they'd have said "What the F is that"?!?
And with all the fake handsets that were out there, it could have been (and WAS) believed to be a fake.
It wasn't until Giz opened it and properly identified KNOWN Apple hardware & chips that the owner was clearly Apple. ANYONE can stamp an Apple logo and some text on a device.
So even the middlemen would legally be pretty safe in saying they couldn't know that Apple was the owner.

But really, IMO the statute of limitations should expire pretty quick for this case. And definitely not continue past Apple's discontinuation of the model.
Even more importantly, if I has a say, Apple would have to show that their income and profits were grossly damaged by the leaking/sale (which they wouldn't be able to show at all, because if anything, Apple gained MORE press and garnered more demand from the unusual exposure).

Totally agree.
What's to stop anyone from back-peddling and saying the item they threw away was actually 'lost'?
Such as if a man throws out a cardboard box, then later realizes it had a wad of cash in it.
Suddenly the box wasn't discarded, but is now lost, and anyone who had previously found the lost box is suddenly a criminal. JUST because the guy changed his mind.

Click to expand...

Solid post. All in all I think the Engineer that left it there could have prevented the whole thing by idk say NOT bringing a device that has a huge ass stigma out. Seriously bad idea...

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.